Battlefield Earth

Reassessing U.S. Responses to Terrorist Threats

In collaboration with Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

In 2001, the U.S. Congress authorized the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” This Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) set no limits on time, location, or target.

In just the last 12 months, the AUMF was invoked in support of the war in Afghanistan, but also unconventional operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and possibly elsewhere -- operations such as targeted killings using drones, raids and captures by U.S. Special Forces, and, in all probability, cyber warfare.

As Heather Hurlburt writes in “Battlefield Earth” in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas’ Winter 2014 issue, out this month: “public debate over the use of force in Syria and the revelations concerning National Security Agency surveillance suggest that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with actions being undertaken in their name. President Obama appeared to acknowledge this reality in May [2013] when he said he looked forward ‘to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.’”

With combat in Afghanistan winding down at the end of the year, does the AUMF continue to authorize force against any terror suspect linked to al-Qaeda, anywhere? Will Congress or the Administration move to "refine" or "repeal" it, and if so, how?

The New America Foundation’s National Security Program and Democracy Journal hosted a panel discussion assessing the politics, legal alternatives, and policy implications of a 13-year-old piece of legislation that makes the planet an open-ended battlefield.

Join the conversation online using #battlefieldearth and following @NatSecNAF.